חדש באתר: NotebookLM עם כל תכני הרב מיכאל אברהם. דומה למיכי בוט.

Q&A: The Principles for the Study of Jewish Law

Back to list  |  🌐 עברית  |  ℹ About
Originally published:
This is an English translation (via GPT-5.4). Read the original Hebrew version.

The Principles for the Study of Jewish Law

Question

Rabbi Amiel wrote in The Principles for the Study of Jewish Law (1:5):
There is a difference between a cause that positively brings about its effect and a cause that prevents the effect. In the first case, certainly the cause must come before the effect, since that is inherent in the very concept of a causative factor: the cause of something must obviously precede the thing itself. However, in the second case, since this is only a preventing cause, it can prevent only if it still exists in reality even after the effect has come into being. But if after the effect has come into being that aforementioned preventing cause has ceased to exist, then nothing stands in the way of the effect's coming into being.
 
I didn't understand the logic of what he is saying—do you agree with him, or could you at least please explain the rationale behind it? 
 

Answer

You'd have to see the context, but I understand him to mean a cause that prevents the effect from taking hold after the cause tried to bring it about. Since the cause occurred, the effect is poised to take hold, and the factor stopping it has to exist at every moment. The moment it no longer exists, the effect takes hold.

Discussion on Answer

Yair (2024-01-13)

He is talking about "his bill of divorce and his hand come simultaneously" and claims that "a slave's hand is like his master's hand" is a preventing cause, and therefore it cannot prevent the giving of the bill of divorce. Does that change the explanation?

Michi (2024-01-13)

Maybe he means to say that "a slave's hand is like his master's hand" prevents the giving of the bill of divorce, but that only operates after the bill of divorce has been given, and by then it no longer exists.
Put more simply: "a slave's hand is like his master's hand" means that the slave himself acquires it, and the master acquires it from him (not in his place). Therefore, when the bill of divorce is given and the slave is emancipated, the master can no longer acquire the bill of divorce from him.

השאר תגובה

Back to top button